Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[jimbob]

We know that he was in the Wermacht. This excludes the possibility of also being in the SS.

Dave

Hey Dave, when you have finished teaching your late cat about the Battle of Britain and why a plane without the range to reach the UK wouldn't have been a threat to the RAF over Britain, maybe Pickle could branch out into the Brexit discussion?

 

[Michel H]

I am surprised that you suggest that Cameron should have engaged in economic terrorism. You seemed to be against such tactics earlier.

Anyways, it would not have worked. If, to put it in your lingo, the UK had been able to satisfy its greed via terrorism then the EU would have been finished. The other countries would have either employed the same british tactics to exploit weaker countries or simply left to protect themselves.
...

amazer said:

The UK has been without a doubt a net contributor to the EU... a large one... but on a per capita basis it's on or near the bottom of the list of net contributors.

My point of view (of course, I can't be 100% sure that I am right) is that, if it is the UK's desire to be only a modest net contributor to the EU, it should have this right. I would, however, expect the UK to be a net contributor because it is somewhat richer than the average. Since amazer explains to us that the UK is a large net contributor, there seems to be still a possibility of contribution reduction without resorting to any kind of unpleasant "terrorism".

Perhaps this would have been enough to win these few percents necessary to win a referendum about Brexit (or not).

Of course, one other concession which could easily have been granted to the UK is to limit the freedom of movement of people. I respect the Poles, but perhaps they did not quite need their million Poles.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

amazer said:

My point of view (of course, I can't be 100% sure that I am right) is that, if it is the UK's desire to be only a modest net contributor to the EU, it should have this right. I would, however, expect the UK to be a net contributor because it is somewhat richer than the average. Since amazer explains to us that the UK is a large net contributor, there seems to be still a possibility of contribution reduction without resorting to any kind of unpleasant "terrorism".

The UK should have "the right" to unilaterally alter the terms of a multilateral agreement?

Perhaps this would have been enough to win these few percents necessary to win a referendum about Brexit (or not).

Of course, one other concession which could easily have been granted to the UK is to limit the freedom of movement of people. I respect the Poles, but perhaps they did not quite need their million Poles.

Right, it's "easy" to allow just one country and one country only to suddenly say they don't want to follow just this one rule (well, in addition to several other rules already granted exemptions on) that everyone agreed to and will still apply to everyone else.

It may be more useful to envision a classroom full of children instead of a collection of nations...

 

[angrysoba]

Probably through negotiations, but such negotiations can be difficult and tough, and can sometimes fail. It is actually possible the UK (led at that time by David Cameron) should have negotiated a further rebate in 2016, right before the referendum (and made it permanent). Then, perhaps, the outcome of the referendum would have been 52 percent (or more) to remain, rather than 52 percent to leave.

Oh God! Let’s say we can make the case that the UK is paying too much money to he EU.

What’s the more difficult option?

a) negotiate with the EU to reduce the UK’s fees
b) leave the EU and negotiate hundreds of trade deals around the world that are as good as we have now

The more difficult option is b.

 

[Michel H]

The UK should have "the right" to unilaterally alter the terms of a multilateral agreement?



Right, it's "easy" to allow just one country and one country only to suddenly say they don't want to follow just this one rule (well, in addition to several other rules already granted exemptions on) that everyone agreed to and will still apply to everyone else.
...

No, I don't think that the UK should be fundamentally treated differently from the other nations (there are also net recipients in the EU, good for them). However, we all understand, that , regarding the UK, the situation is particularly critical (this is why this thread exists).

A modification of the UK's contribution should be democratically agreed by all members of the UE and, of course, not decided unilaterally by the UK (that would really be too easy for the British).

 

[Vixen]

You said-:



(Again my highlight) That's not getting a birthdate mixed up, that's a deliberate conflation of his actions with those of his father. Actions, which I would point out are a disgusting slur that you have been completely unable to back up. Refering to someone as an SS Officer without a shred of evidence is about as low as you can get, you should be ashamed.

As for Rees Mogg, I haven't noticed a single derogatory directed at his family, at his words, actions and affectations, certainly and I hold that is fair game.

I'll remind you that you once posted this, in this very thread-:



Just for once why not try and make that the truth

As I said, it was a mistake. I mixed up his wiki d.o.b. with someone else's.

 

[Vixen]

I disagree with you, Denyer. I find very little anti-EU rhetoric in this thread (some by Vixen, who should perhaps get credit for it, although some people have pointed out that she may not be the most reliable poster).

I think that the many proponents of the EU in this thread (which is fine) should address more often the question: what is the EU doing with the British money it gets? Providing a real, proportionate service to the British people, to the taxpayers who give the money? Then there should be no problem (or should have been). Financing the Common Agricultural Policy mostly in France and Spain (Margaret Thatcher was already saying "I want my money back" way before Brexit), and economic development in Eastern European states? Then, there can be a problem, if these money transfers are disproportionate.

But I note that these problems are mostly ignored by the EU proponents of this thread. This is unfortunate, because they are probably essential to understand why more than fifty percents of Britons chose Leave in 2016. Understanding them may also be important to find a solution to the current difficulties.

Rich, coming from you.

 

[Vixen]

Simple way to clear this up.

Have you watched any Dad's Army or 'Allo' allo?

I have seen short segments in passing. I once tried to watch an entire episode of 'Allo 'Allo and was bored within minutes..

 

[GnaGnaMan]

My point of view (of course, I can't be 100% sure that I am right) is that, if it is the UK's desire to be only a modest net contributor to the EU, it should have this right.

The UK has the right to send as little or as much money to any country or organization it wants. No problem there.

The problem is that the UK does not have the right to set standards, regulations, or tariffs for any of the other 27 nations in the EU. They are, each of them, free and sovereign. If the UK wants to shape their laws and trade policies so as to ensure frictionless trade then it will need to negotiate. And if those nations want money in the bargain then the UK can take it or leave it, just as it wants.

[...]there seems to be still a possibility of contribution reduction without resorting to any kind of unpleasant "terrorism".

If the UK threatens to leave the EU, thus threatening economic catastrophe, to get its wishes, is this not "extortion"? That was the precise word you used.

Of course, one other concession which could easily have been granted to the UK is to limit the freedom of movement of people.

No. Scrapping freedom of movement would have required renegotiating the EU treaties. That is a monumental task.
Whether one could even establish a consensus to abolish one of the 4 freedoms that have existed since before the UK joined the EU-predecessor is questionable.

I respect the Poles, but perhaps they did not quite need their million Poles.

Maybe the british don't need all those iphones, or BMWs, or what not either. But they have bought them just like they hired all those Poles.

 

[Vixen]

Not getting your joke?

You seem to have a belief 'everybody has watched Dad's Army and 'Allo,'Allo.'

People I met were shocked to discover I had never seen 'Sound of Music' up until a few years ago.

I have never watched 'Neighbours' or 'Hollyoaks, 'Love Island' or 'Get Me Out of Here I Am a Celebrity' you might be amazed to know.

I have never watched Eastenders or The Bill except by accident.

My opinions are not formed from popular TV shows, but by dint of critical evaluation of the news from numerous sources and textbooks.

 

[Olmstead]

No, I don't think that the UK should be fundamentally treated differently from the other nations (there are also net recipients in the EU, good for them). However, we all understand, that , regarding the UK, the situation is particularly critical (this is why this thread exists).

A modification of the UK's contribution should be democratically agreed by all members of the UE and, of course, not decided unilaterally by the UK (that would really be too easy for the British).

In other words, you think the UK should get to have its cake and eat it too because they threw a hissy fit and threatened to take their ball and go home.

 

[Vixen]

You still have this wrong. Perhaps what you have in mind is "his Jewish fellows"?

(English is most certainly my first language, and the B household has a combined 40+ years experience in teaching English. MrsB has 35 of those and instantly agreed with my view on this, fwiw. In fact she butted in with "Jewish fellows" before I'd even said it)

eta: Of course "fellow man" is correct, but that's because 'man' here is the class that includes all humans. Clever of you to illustrate your point with an example that's bound to be correct.

It should be obvious the comparison was to Juncker's peers. It had zero to do with his religion.

 

[Vixen]

I can just about excuse the first incorrect use of this phrase as a genuine mistake, though it's a very surprising one given how well known and understood the meaning of 'fellow' is when used as an adjective. Deliberately continuing to make the mistake even after it has been pointed out, however, is not excusable. It's disgraceful, and Vixen should be thoroughly ashamed of herself.

That would only work if you knew better than me, which I doubt you do. I am too polite to correct other people's grammar so I shall say no more.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

As I said, it was a mistake. I mixed up his wiki d.o.b. with someone else's.

You said it was relevant to ask what he did in the war, that's not mixing up his date of birth, it's either deliberate conflation of the father with the son or, well what? How many currently serving politicians do you think there are who were old enough to have played a part in the Second World War? I mean really, do you not know when it was? Do you really think when I pointed out he wasn't born until 1954 that your claiming he was born in 1950 addressed the actual issue? Do you really think that mixing up 1950 and 1954 makes any difference to the insinuation you were trying to make?

And are you also going to retract the slur that he was an SS Officer? That is a horrible accusation to pull out of your ass and throw at anyone.

Your claim that he was an Officer in the Wehrmact, without any evidence. You claimed he was 'committed' to their ideals, without any evidence, and that he brought his son up steeped in those ideals, without any evidence Can you not see that going around accusing people without evidence of willing complicity in genocide is a horrible thing to do?

Probably not, you don't even have the decency admit that you misspoke when you refered to Juncker's 'fellow Jews'.


ETA: And anyway, what Juncker's father did in the War still isn't relevant to his son.

 

[Vixen]

Please take English advice from native speakers. "fellow jews" means he was a jew.

Not my problem if your understanding is limited.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed, the correct phrase would be 'Jewish compatriots' but even still I struggle to see the point being made. Should he have refused conscription and been shot to show solidarity with his Jewish bretheren? I'm not sure how this would have helped anyone, least of all the Jews in Luxembourg.

Joseph Juncker was born in 1924 according to a website I found. Which would have made him 16 when the Germans invaded. Presumably 18 when he was conscripted?

And he rose up to become an officer from what I read. The war lasted from 1939 to 1945.

He was the same age as most conscripts. AIUI the minimum age requirement is 18, or at least this was true of war time Britain.

My father joined the RAF underage at 17 but he didn't join until towards the end of the war.

The rationalisation 'ah, but Herr Juncker Senior was just a young man' is horrible when you consider what some of these zealous young Nazis did.

He may or may not have supported the Nazi cause, but 'oh he was only young' would not be an excuse for committing atrocities, which of course, we don't know he ever did.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No, I don't think that the UK should be fundamentally treated differently from the other nations (there are also net recipients in the EU, good for them). However, we all understand, that , regarding the UK, the situation is particularly critical (this is why this thread exists).

What is critical?

A thread about the UK leaving the EU isn't an example of why the UK needed to leave the EU. That's circular reasoning.

A modification of the UK's contribution should be democratically agreed by all members of the UE and, of course, not decided unilaterally by the UK (that would really be too easy for the British).

Yes, I too would like groups of other people to 'democratically agree' with special exceptions I demand. I have little faith in this spontaneously occurring, however.

 

[Vixen]

Maybe Vixen is imagining some sort of "I'm Spartacus" moment where the 18 year old Joseph Junker's refusal to be conscripted and his then execution encourages a mass conscription strike movement across Germany of everyone refusing to serve in the military.

The fact that such a thing wouldn't have happened or be possible; let alone as far a I know a conscription strike having ever actually worked (or taken place on a significantly large scale) shouldn't stop us condemning Junker's dad for doing something we all would certainly say we'd do from the safety of behind our computer screens.

Germany may have had conscription as a desperate measure towards the end of the war, but the Brits who were extremely short of personnel never did bring in conscription AFAIAA for WWII so I am sceptical of Juncker's claim his father 'was forced to join the Wehrmacht'.

OK maybe he was, but to go on to pass officers exams - if my source was correct that he was an officer (and of course it is not referenced so we do not know - means he committed himself.

 

[Michel H]

...
No. Scrapping freedom of movement would have required renegotiating the EU treaties. That is a monumental task.
Whether one could even establish a consensus to abolish one of the 4 freedoms that have existed since before the UK joined the EU-predecessor is questionable.
...

Hm, I have my pen, give me that treaty. I'll just add the lines: "December 21, 2018, Amendment pertaining to the Freedom of Movement of people: Freedom of movement into the United Kingdom is limited to a mandatory number of 10 000 people annually. This means that the United Kingdom is given to right to accept no more than 10 000 immigrants from European Union countries annually, if it so desires".
Done.

 

[Vixen]

I agree with you on this, Lukraak_Sisser.

However, (in my opinion), if the EU finally understood it should be less greedy with the UK, then I think the current long-running crisis in EU-UK relations could perhaps be solved in a very satisfactory way, see https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ (already posted).

If, in the EU, rich countries appear as losers and poor counties appear as winners, then the EU will be a magnet to all poor countries while the rich ones will perhaps flee away (including Germany, once it feels it has corrected its image problem). Perhaps, on this forum, you could use your "people's power" to defend such a viewpoint, but this is far from being the case, as far as I can judge.

The point is: if countries were people, they should all have a smile on their face, without some contries feeling they are being taken advantage of, and European leaders should ensure that.

Far from smiling, certain EU countries were most unhappy at the Greek bailout, thanks to the recklessness of their government spending.